Gruender authored the Eighth Circuit's opinion in In Re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, No. 06-1706, which concluded that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 did not give female employees the right to insurance coverage for contraceptives used solely to prevent pregnancy.[5][6] This opinion has been cited in the context of the debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act contraception mandate.[7][8][9]
In Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, No. 05-3093, a panel of the Eighth Circuit upheld an injunction that struck down a South Dakota informed consent law that required abortion providers to inform patients, among other things, that an "abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Gruender dissented, arguing that the law was constitutional and did not unduly burden women seeking abortions or infringe on the freedom of speech of physicians. The Eighth Circuit heard the case en banc and ruled in 2008 by a vote of 7–4, in an opinion authored by Gruender, that the law was, on its face, constitutional.[10][11]
In Little Rock School District v. North Little Rock School District, No. 04-2923 (2006), Gruender opposed the opinion of a panel of the Eighth Circuit that affirmed the district court's conclusion that federal desegregation monitoring should remain in effect in Little Rock, Arkansas. After the desegregation effort of the Little Rock Nine in 1957, the federal government began monitoring the school district in 1965. The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Little Rock district did not successfully evaluate its academic programs for how well they helped black students. Gruender dissented, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in mandating federal monitoring by using "impossibly subjective" criteria. The district court subsequently agreed with Gruender's reasoning and freed the school district from federal desegregation monitoring. In 2009, the Eighth Circuit then upheld the district court's decision in another appeal, No. 07-1866.[12][13]
